I'm amused that you don't think it's already full civil war.
You simply cannot definitively say that the US leaving would result in more deaths. The US isn't there as peacekeeper. It's there as invader. Many of these "insurgents" are fighting directly against the US, and many are dying in that battle. We don't know what would happen on a US exit, but to say that there would more violence int he long term is simply disingenuous. You can't know that.
If the US was to say, "We'll leave and we need one year to do so," no one would be mad. But they don't. They instead increase troop levels and give every indication that they're not going anywhere.
Let's dispense with the blue-eyed "America is there to make Iraq a better place" bullshit. They didn't spend hundreds of billions of dollars because they so desperately care about the beautiful Iraqi people.
They care that the big oil fields like al Ghawar and Cantarell are making gurgling, slurping noises because they're finished. They care that, unlike other countries, they have virtually no public transportation or other means to handle a spike in oil prices. They care that the last big untapped oil reserves are under the Iraqis' feet. And they're willing to whatever it takes to make sure that they have control of it.
> I'm amused that you don't think it's already full civil war.
It's currently an insurgent war - there is a big big difference.
> You can't know that.
Precedence - look at other historical examples.
> You simply cannot definitively say that the US leaving would result in more deaths.
It's a reasonable and logical assumption; the US has vastly superior weaponry and organisation to the insurgents. They abide by much stricter rules of war/engagement. It's an engagement weighted on the side of the US. If a more even balance was in effect the casualties would, logically, be much higher.
How can you reasonably assert that the US leaving would result in less deaths?
> Let's dispense with the blue-eyed "America is there to make Iraq a better place" bullshit
Be serious; who suggested that (I certainly didn't)?
But your posting smacks of a massive anti-US bias so, I guess, it's pointless to continue arguing :)
In 2006, it was already declared to have devovled into civil war along sectarian lines. The insurgent activity is focused on the US forces being seen (rightly) as illegal occupiers.
So we're in agreement that the US is really there for the oil, which makes all these other arguments kind of moot, right?
I'm not anti-US. I'm anti-"1) illegally invading countries because they have what you want." And I'm anti-"2) scores of dead and mangled innocent men, women and children because of 1)." And I'm anti-"3) soldiers coming home fucked up physically and mentally from 1) and 2).
We can't continue arguing like this, but I respect you and wish you the best, Errant.
Comments
I'm amused that you don't think it's already full civil war.
You simply cannot definitively say that the US leaving would result in more deaths. The US isn't there as peacekeeper. It's there as invader. Many of these "insurgents" are fighting directly against the US, and many are dying in that battle. We don't know what would happen on a US exit, but to say that there would more violence int he long term is simply disingenuous. You can't know that.
If the US was to say, "We'll leave and we need one year to do so," no one would be mad. But they don't. They instead increase troop levels and give every indication that they're not going anywhere.
Let's dispense with the blue-eyed "America is there to make Iraq a better place" bullshit. They didn't spend hundreds of billions of dollars because they so desperately care about the beautiful Iraqi people.
They care that the big oil fields like al Ghawar and Cantarell are making gurgling, slurping noises because they're finished. They care that, unlike other countries, they have virtually no public transportation or other means to handle a spike in oil prices. They care that the last big untapped oil reserves are under the Iraqis' feet. And they're willing to whatever it takes to make sure that they have control of it.
Final message... but here goes.#
> I'm amused that you don't think it's already full civil war.
It's currently an insurgent war - there is a big big difference.
> You can't know that.
Precedence - look at other historical examples.
> You simply cannot definitively say that the US leaving would result in more deaths.
It's a reasonable and logical assumption; the US has vastly superior weaponry and organisation to the insurgents. They abide by much stricter rules of war/engagement. It's an engagement weighted on the side of the US. If a more even balance was in effect the casualties would, logically, be much higher.
How can you reasonably assert that the US leaving would result in less deaths?
> Let's dispense with the blue-eyed "America is there to make Iraq a better place" bullshit
Be serious; who suggested that (I certainly didn't)?
But your posting smacks of a massive anti-US bias so, I guess, it's pointless to continue arguing :)
Final post too. :-)
In 2006, it was already declared to have devovled into civil war along sectarian lines. The insurgent activity is focused on the US forces being seen (rightly) as illegal occupiers.
So we're in agreement that the US is really there for the oil, which makes all these other arguments kind of moot, right?
I'm not anti-US. I'm anti-"1) illegally invading countries because they have what you want." And I'm anti-"2) scores of dead and mangled innocent men, women and children because of 1)." And I'm anti-"3) soldiers coming home fucked up physically and mentally from 1) and 2).
We can't continue arguing like this, but I respect you and wish you the best, Errant.